‍CBS News is attempting to reeducate one of its anchors after he performed a bit of journalism.<h2 id="">A one-track mind</h2>CBS Mornings anchor Tony Dokoupil caused a scandal after he pushed back on author Ta-Nehisi Coates during an interview Monday. Coates, who specializes in writing about black victimhood, was on CBS to promote his new anti-Israel book that similarly paints Palestinians as perpetual victims. The book criticizes Jews for having a state and compares them to white men, whom Coates believes are natural oppressors.“For as sure as my ancestors were born into a country where none of them was the equal of any white man, Israel was revealing itself to be a country where no Palestinian is ever the equal of any Jewish person anywhere,” Coates writes in the book.<h2 id="">Forbidden journalism</h2>In Monday’s interview with Coates, Dokoupil broke from mainstream media tradition and asked his guest challenging questions. The anchor asked, for example, why Coates had omitted basic facts about Israel and the Middle East region.“Why leave out that Israel is surrounded by countries that want to eliminate it? Why leave out that Israel deals with terror groups that want to eliminate it?” Dokoupil queried.“I am most concerned, always, with those who don’t have a voice,” Coates told Dokoupil, even though the pro-Palestine narrative is dominant in academia, mainstream media, global policy, and much of the corporate world.Dokoupil also asked Coates: “What is it that so particularly offends you about the existence of a Jewish state that is a Jewish safe place?”“There’s nothing that offends me about a Jewish state; I am offended by the idea of states built on ethnocracy, no matter where they are,” Coates replied. He notably took no issue with any of the dozens of ethnocratic Islamic countries.&nbsp;“I have to say, when I read the book, I imagine if I took your name out of it, took away the awards, the acclaim, took the cover off the book, publishing house goes away, the content of that section would not be out of place in the backpack of an extremist,” Dokoupil also said.<h2 id="">Scolded and reeducated</h2>Although the interview was civil and even ended on a light note <a href="https://archive.is/L0C2A#selection-979.113-979.155" id="">according</a> to the New York Times, Dokoupil was reprimanded and scolded. After CBS personnel complained, the network’s bosses slammed Dokoupil for supposedly not being impartial. These included CBS News and Stations president and CEO Wendy McMahon, as well as Editorial and News Gathering President Adrienne Roark.Dokoupil was forced to undergo a reeducation course from the network’s Race and Culture Unit, which polices content to ensure it complies with woke messaging. They were joined by the CBS News Standards and Practices team, and together they analyzed Dokoupil’s “tone of voice, phrasing and body language” during the interview.After the meeting, Dokoupil apologized to staffers saying he “regretted putting his colleagues in that position especially the ones overseas and in danger.” <a href="https://nypost.com/2024/10/08/media/cbs-tony-dokoupil-offers-regrets-at-teary-staff-meeting-after-grilling-anti-israel-author/?utm_campaign=nypost&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social" id="">According</a> to the New York Post, staff members were very “troubled” that Dokoupil had challenged Coates, with some even weeping from anger.“There were tears. [People were] very upset,” an insider said.&nbsp;<h2 id="">‘As journalists we are obligated to challenge’</h2>On a call Monday, Roarke told other executives: “After a review of our coverage, including the interview, it’s clear that there are times we have not met our editorial standards.”The network’s Chief Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford spoke up and asked Roarke how Dokuopil had not met editorial standards.“When someone comes on our air with a one-sided account of a very complex situation, as Coates himself acknowledges that he has, it’s my understanding that as journalists we are obligated to challenge that worldview so that our viewers can have that access to the truth or a fuller account,” Crawford said. “To me, that is what Tony did.”“What is the objective standard for the rest of us when we are doing our own interviews?” she asked.“I appreciate you bringing this up. I know this is a lot for everybody to process,” Roarke replied before telling Crawford she would follow after the call.As The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/cbs-anchor-met-with-race-and-culture-unit-following-questioning-of-ta-nehisi-coates" id="">notes</a>, CBS only appears to apply this sudden standard of “impartiality” to pro-Israel questioning. The network had no issue, for example, when Dokoupil’s co-host Gayle King lectured the father of an eight-year-old Israeli hostage held by Hamas to be more sympathetic toward Palestinians.‍

CBS melts down after anchor practices actual journalism

Network's staff grows hysterical after host asks tough questions: 'There were tears'

<h4 id="">Thank you for the (human)&nbsp;sacrifice</h4>When Eli Lilly’s new drug Kisunla, for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, was approved by the FDA in July of this year, the company put out a news release thanking all those who had participated in the drug trials:<blockquote id="">Our deepest thanks to the patients and their loved ones for participating in our clinical programs and to Lilly scientists and collaborators persevering over decades of research. Each year, more and more people are at risk for this disease, and we are determined to make life better for them.</blockquote>Lilly indeed had a lot to be grateful for in terms of the sacrifices made by those participants, given that at least 26 people died during Kisunla’s clinical trials. 16 of the deaths occurred in the drug cohort and 10 in the placebo cohort. However, the researchers running the trials determined that only 3 of the 16 deaths in the Kisunla cohort were related to the drug.Might this have something to do with that determination?<figure id="" class="w-richtext-figure-type-image w-richtext-align-normal" style="max-width:30%" data-rt-type="image" data-rt-align="normal" data-rt-max-width="30%"><div id=""><img src="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/66450044188dfe741d77c31e/6707ef51c64acee5a5798754_6707ef2adaadc2be81f72bb9_kisunla%2520conflicts.png" loading="lazy" alt="__wf_reserved_inherit" width="auto" height="auto" id=""></div></figure>&nbsp;This is the list of researchers who conducted the <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37459141/" id="">clinical trials</a> for Kisunla. While it is not uncommon for a clinical study to be conducted by internal researchers, Kisunla was not only researched but also recommended for FDA approval by "experts" with strong ties to Eli Lilly. Two investigative journalists, writing in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), believe there is a connection between those approving the drug and money pouring in to them from the drug’s manufacturer. Their <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/386/bmj.q2010" id="">article</a>, titled, “Conflicts of interest found in FDA committee that approved new Alzheimer’s drug,” sheds light on the machinations of the federal agency that is supposed to protect consumers from dangerous products. In fact, the FDA initially refused to authorize Kisunla, for very good reasons, but eventually changed its mind.Why?‍<h4 id="">New, exciting, and deadly</h4>The BMJ article’s opening paragraph sums up the concerns swirling around Kisunla very succinctly:<blockquote id="">A new drug for Alzheimer’s disease is causing excitement despite excess deaths, missing safety data, questionable efficacy, and financial conflicts of interest among the “independent” advisory panelists who recommended approval.</blockquote>Why the excitement, given the excess deaths? The answer is that Kisunla is one of a new class of drugs designed to slow down the decline of Alzheimer’s patients. These drugs are anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies which target amyloid plaques that, in Eli Lilly’s <a href="https://investor.lilly.com/news-releases/news-release-details/lillys-kisunlatm-donanemab-azbt-approved-fda-treatment-early" id="">words</a>, “may lead to memory and thinking issues associated with Alzheimer’s disease.” The key word here is “may,” because it is not proven that reducing the amount of amyloid plaques is in fact beneficial to Alzheimer’s patients.Nonetheless, given that there are no proven pharmacological treatments for curing the disease, many are inclined to grasp at even flimsy and sometimes dangerous straws in the hope of at least some relief.‍<h4 id="">Where do inconvenient data go to die?</h4>The path to Kisunla’s approval has been long and winding. In early 2023, the FDA declined to approve it, citing a “high rate” of missing data and insufficient evidence of safety when the drug is used in the long-term (which is how it is designed to be used).Among their concerns, the FDA pointed out that many more people in the drug arm of the trial withdrew due to experiencing adverse events than did those in the placebo arm. Instead of incorporating these numbers into the trial results, however, the researchers simply removed the data entirely from the final analysis. The FDA noted that it was impossible from the published results to determine whether or not those who withdrew were still alive, or had passed away perhaps due to the adverse events they experienced.The main dangers of the drug that emerged were brain hemorrhage and swelling, which is (in the trial) collectively referred to as amyloid related imaging abnormalities (ARIA). ARIA of various kinds occurred in 36.8% of patients taking Kisunla (a.k.a. donanemab) versus 14.9% of placebo patients.<figure id="" class="w-richtext-figure-type-image w-richtext-align-normal" style="max-width:30%" data-rt-type="image" data-rt-align="normal" data-rt-max-width="30%"><div id=""><img src="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/66450044188dfe741d77c31e/6707e701d48ad517926a664a_6707e6e49c9d596e8e2d5d21_aria%2520kisunla.png" loading="lazy" alt="__wf_reserved_inherit" width="auto" height="auto" id=""></div></figure>&nbsp;The numbers of deaths appeared alarming, but the trial researchers concluded that almost none of them were related to the drug — in fact, they acknowledged a link between Kisunla and death in only 3 trial participants, who died due to complications from ARIA.However, the FDA remained unconvinced and told Lilly that if it wanted the drug approved, the firm would have to come up with the “lost” data on all the missing trial participants. There were a great many of them — 221 out of an initial 1,074 in the Kisunla cohort and 170 out of an initial 1,048 in the placebo cohort.Lilly agreed — in an agreement of sorts. What they in fact did was hire an outside company to search “publicly available records and databases, social media, and traditional media” to obtain the missing data.&nbsp;When approached by The BMJ,&nbsp;Lilly explained that data tracking was limited to sites that agreed to follow up and to countries where it was “legally permissible” to seek out patients through public media. Four of the eight countries refused: Japan, Netherlands, the Czech Republic, and Poland.The BMJ also asked Lilly to reveal the name of the outside company, but Lilly refused.‍<h4 id="">Inconvenient data resurrected! Or...</h4>After the outside company reported back, Lilly announced that 118 of the 221 missing patients in the Kisunla cohort and 66 of the 170 in the placebo cohort had been located, and of them, 2 people had died in the Kisunla cohort and 5 in the placebo cohort. That meant that there were now a total of 18 deaths in the Kisunla group and 15 in the placebo group.However, there was still no information on adverse events among the missing people, and among the deaths, no causes were provided, as Dr.Steven Goodman, a professor of epidemiology at Stanford University, told The BMJ:<blockquote id="">There was also no information on health outcomes in those patients other than death, or the causes of the deaths. The failure to formally follow patients who stopped treatment was a significant design flaw, particularly when that discontinuation was partly due to adverse drug effects.</blockquote>The “failure to follow patients who stopped treatment” may have been due to other reasons than “design flaw,” of course. However, the reasons for Lilly’s researchers designing the trial as they did are a matter of conjecture.‍<h4 id="">Brain shrinkage is a sign you're doing better (says Eli Lilly)...</h4>The FDA remains concerned about ARIA, noting in its “<a href="https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-approvals-and-databases/drug-trials-snapshots-kisunla" id="">snapshot</a>” of Kisunla’s drug trials that some types of ARIA which cause bleeding in the brain “may not resolve.” Side effects (aside from death) include headache, confusion, dizziness, vision changes, nausea, seizures, and difficulty walking. As can be seen in the table provided above, such events occurred disproportionately to the extreme in the Kisunla group in the trials and one may assume that the same applies to the people whose data was “temporarily lost.”However, there are also other serious concerns linked to Kisunla (and all the drugs in this new class of anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies). One of them is “brain shrinkage.”Alzheimer’s disease is itself associated with brain atrophy leading to cognitive decline, so use of a drug that accelerates that shrinkage would seem to be rather controversial. Eli Lilly, however, claims that the brain shrinkage associated with Kisunla is a very different type of shrinkage from that linked to Alzheimer’s — in fact, they insist it is a sign that the drug is working precisely as it should, because it is reducing the amount of amyloid plaques and the associated inflammation.The BMJ article’s authors dispute this, pointing out that Kisunla’s trials itself showed that the drug increased the amount of a certain protein that increases together with brain cell death.‍<h4 id="">... even if you can't see any improvement at all</h4>All the same, perhaps all of the above is a worthwhile price to pay for a drug that has a significantly positive effect on Alzheimer’s patients? While some Alzheimer’s advocacy groups lobbied hard for the drug to be approved (for various reasons), George Perry, editor-in-chief of the&nbsp;Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease,&nbsp;told&nbsp;The BMJ&nbsp;that Kisunla and all the other new drugs in its class have a negligible effect on slowing cognitive decline:<blockquote id="">... all demonstrate an imperceptible slowing of dementia in the midst of serious adverse effects, including death. [emphasis added]</blockquote>Why, then, did the FDA determine that Kisunla’s impact on Alzheimer’s was significant, and approve it?The most widely accepted scale for measuring cognitive function is the CDR-SB (clinical dementia rating scale-sum of boxes). Eli Lilly began its trials for Kisunla using the CDR-SB scale but, during the course of the trial, switched to another scale called the iADRS (integrated Alzheimer’s disease rating scale). Unlike the CDR-SB, which was developed by a team from the Washington University School of Medicine, the iADRS was created by... Eli Lilly.Why might they have done that? Possibly it was due to the fact that (as Lilly admitted), Kisunla “failed to show a significant difference” in its phase 2 trials.The FDA objected to the change, saying they “did not agree” with it. However, the published results showing a mild degree of efficacy for Kisunla were still <a href="https://kisunla.lilly.com/hcp/efficacy#iadrsefficacy" id="">presented </a>according to the iADRS.Here they are:<figure id="" class="w-richtext-figure-type-image w-richtext-align-normal" style="max-width:30%" data-rt-type="image" data-rt-align="normal" data-rt-max-width="30%"><div id=""><img src="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/66450044188dfe741d77c31e/6707e98ebb96124403e785e7_6707e90c12546373e072b60b_kisunla%2520results%25201.png" loading="lazy" alt="__wf_reserved_inherit" width="auto" height="auto" id=""></div></figure>‍The difference between Kisunla and placebo here is 2.9 on a scale of 144 points. According to Lilly’s own criteria, a 5-point difference or more indicates a clinically meaningful result (i.e., a result that can be felt in the real world, not just plotted on a graph). Anything below that is “not considered to be perceptible to patients or their carers,” as The BMJ puts it.Nonetheless, Lilly proudly proclaimed the trials a success and, what’s more, they manipulated the results by dividing the trial participants into several groups according to “tau” level (which may or may not have real-world significance for Alzheimer’s patients), and announced that Kisunla “slows decline by 35 percent.”<figure id="" class="w-richtext-figure-type-image w-richtext-align-normal" style="max-width:30%" data-rt-type="image" data-rt-align="normal" data-rt-max-width="30%"><div id=""><img src="https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/66450044188dfe741d77c31e/6707e98ebb96124403e785e3_6707e9822ed8767244329dd8_kisunla%2520results%25202.png" loading="lazy" alt="__wf_reserved_inherit" width="auto" height="auto" id=""></div></figure>‍35 percent sounds quite impressive (much like the alleged 90+ percent efficacy of the COVID shots). However, it’s only the relative difference between a decline of 6 points and a decline of 9.3 points. That’s a difference of 3.3 points on a 144-point scale.When one considers that the chances of experiencing dangerous brain bleeding and swelling from the drug appear to be in the region of 25 percent, a positive effect of what works out to just 2.3 percent sounds a little less impressive.‍<h4 id="">Cherry-picked data, cherry-picked "independent advisers"</h4>And yet the FDA approved Kisunla, shortly after Lilly produced the “missing data.” Why?In fact, this was just one in a series of questionable approvals of drugs in this anti-amyloid monoclonal class. The other approvals were for Aduhelm and Leqembi. In all three cases, FDA advisory committee members (most of whom were independent academics) voted against approval, almost unanimously. In the case of Aduhelm, the trials failed to show any tangible benefit for the drug and so the researchers instead proclaimed that it reduced the amount of amyloid plaques in the brain, which may or may not be significant for the Alzheimer’s patients themselves.Nonetheless, the FDA approved Aduhelm and, in protest, 3 of the advisory committee members <a href="https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1503" id="">resigned</a>. When it was Leqembi’s turn, the FDA was taking no chances. It replaced all 11 members of the advisory committee who had criticized the approval of Aduhelm and appointed 6 new physicians to review the drug trials. 4 of them, or their employers, had recent financial ties to manufacturers of Leqembi, while public data on the financial ties of the other 2 are not available.The new 6-member committee then unanimously approved Leqembi and the FDA authorized it.&nbsp;Next in line was Kisunla. In early 2024, the FDA expanded its advisory committee to 11 members, including 8 physicians. From the public database OpenPayments, members’ CVs, disclosures in published articles, and the Google patent ownership database,&nbsp;The BMJ&nbsp;found that these advisers received up to $62,000 for consulting and speaking fees and up to $10.5m in research grants from 2017 through to the end of 2023.Three physician advisers had financial ties to Lilly and two to Roche (Lilly’s development partner in creating a new blood test for Alzheimer’s). Two doctors have patents for amyloid antibodies, while another has received research funding from Janssen for another Alzheimer’s drug. This is also relevant, because approval of one drug in a class makes it more likely that others in that class will also be approved — as the history of Leqembi and Aduhelm shows).The BMJ points out that “federal law on conflicts of interest prohibits advisory members from having ties to companies that would have a ‘direct and predictable effect on the financial interests of the [adviser] or his employer.’ ” Furthermore, the FDA asks members to declare past financial interests plus “anything that would give an ‘appearance’ of a conflict,” without specifying a timeframe.&nbsp;However, the FDA can grant waivers if the expertise of the adviser concerned is deemed necessary and outweighs potential bias. The FDA indeed granted a waiver to two of the advisory members; when The BMJ asked the FDA about the “extensive financial conflicts among the physician advisers," it responded: “The FDA does not comment on matters related to individual members of an advisory committee.”‍<h4 id="">FDA:&nbsp;We'll review the situation in 13 years</h4>But all is not lost, as the FDA has ordered Eli Lilly to keep track of how much harm Kisunla is doing via a post-market “registry based, prospective, observational study” that will document events including deaths, brain hemorrhage, and edema. Lilly will be required to submit regular reports to the FDA, but the <a href="https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/appletter/2024/761248Orig1s000ltr.pdf" id="">final report</a> is not due until February 2037.‍The information contained in this article is for educational and information purposes only and is not intended as health, medical, financial or legal advice. Always consult a physician, lawyer or other qualified professional regarding any questions you may have about a medical condition, health objectives or legal or financial issues.

New FDA-approved Alzheimer's drugs shrink your brain (and may kill you)

When the FDA's independent advisers objected, the FDA fired them and hired new 'independent' advisers

Teachers can keep parents in the dark about what their children are being taught in the classroom, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled last month.Since December 2021, Carol Beth Litkouhi has been trying to obtain information from a Rochester public school about a course being offered to her child called “A History of Ethnic and Gender Studies.” The school has refused.Litkouhi filed a FOIA request for the information. She also filed a request for documents related to the school’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training. The school provided little information, claiming the rest was protected by copyright because it was developed by the teachers.In 2022, the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation <a href="https://www.mackinac.org/RochesterFOIA?utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-83mcMWhadctqdz7pi3OMJRzZ7ReFc9MhBJ12uVqKAk9usIsLigr6ASiimZnYvrFKnAIo-DNyKtZJlB8IYBGX1tshFBrg&_hsmi=326629118&utm_content=326629118&utm_source=hs_email" id="">filed</a> a lawsuit against Rochester Public Schools on Litkouhi’s behalf. The district argued that teachers are not bound by FOIA law and therefore are not obligated to reveal their lesson plans or materials.This February, the Michigan Court of Appeals sided with the district, and on September 25th, the Michigan Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s ruling.<h2 id="">Any secrecy ‘is a red flag’</h2>“The implications of this decision are enormous,” said Mackinac Center Transparency and Open Government Director Steve Delie. “It means that records held by local government employees across the state — whether they be teachers, police officers or township workers — are likely exempt from public disclosure, making it much harder for citizens to hold their local governments accountable.”Litkouhi said that secrecy in the classroom is a red flag.“At the heart of my lawsuit was a simple but critical principle: Nothing taught in our schools should be under the cover of secrecy,” she said in a statement <a href="https://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/news/school-curricula-to-stay-hidden-from-parents-high-court-rules" id="">reported</a> by Michigan Capitol Confidential. “If there is any reason why secrecy is desired or needed, that alone is a red flag. The Rochester School Board felt it best to keep classroom materials secret from parents. They took money away from classrooms to fight this fight. Sadly, they have now succeeded in setting a new, disturbing legal precedent.”The ruling is the latest blow to parents who seek transparency in schools, particularly when it comes to gender ideology indoctrination.<h2 id="">California: Schools may hide developmental health from parents</h2>In July, California Governor Gavin Newsom <a href="https://www.thegoldreport.com/news/california-enacts-law-to-hide-gender-ideology-from-parents" id="">signed</a> AB1955, a new piece of legislation that allows schools to hide information about students’ developmental health from their parents. School employees will no longer be required to tell a child’s parents if he or she identifies as “LGBTQ+,” according to the new law, and schools are forbidden from taking action against an employee who keeps that information from a child’s parents.This is not the first California law designed to erode parental authority.Last year, Newsom signed a bill granting the state a monopoly on education and requiring schools to integrate gender ideology in their curricula.Previously, school boards were free to remove material from curricula they deemed objectionable. But with Newsom’s approval of <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1078/2023" id="">AB1078</a> in September, boards will now be required to first seek permission from the California School Boards Association (CSBA) before removing any materials.Those materials are now required to include indoctrination about gender ideology and how those who suffer from gender dysphoria have contributed to society.<h2 id="">Federal court: Religious parents cannot opt out of gender ideology</h2>In May, a federal court <a href="https://www.thegoldreport.com/news/religious-freedom-does-not-protect-from-gender-ideology-in-schools-court-rules" id="">rejected</a> an appeal from parents of all three major faiths to opt out of gender ideology in school.As of the 2023-2034 school year, all children who attend publicly funded schools in Montgomery County, Maryland must read LGBT materials that are listed as assigned reading. These include books such as “Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope,” which is about a biological boy who says he is a girl. Small children will also be exposed to “Pride Puppy,” an alphabet book about a little boy who loses his puppy at a Pride parade.The books were approved by the Montgomery County Board of Education in 2022. One year later they were made mandatory.A group of six Christian, Jewish, and Muslim parents sued the Montgomery County Board of Education over the new mandate. The parents argued that a compulsory curriculum that glorifies homosexuality violates their First Amendment right to freedom of religion. The parents were joined by the parental rights group Kids First.A lower court rejected the parents’ bid, prompting an appeal. Last Wednesday, a 2-1 majority on the 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s ruling. Bush appointee Judge G. Steven Agee and Obama appointee Judge DeAndrea Benjamin both rejected the parents’ complaint.“At present, however, no evidence in the record connects the requisite dots between the Parents’ children’s ages or mental capacity and their unknown exposure to the Storybooks to conclude that the Parents have already shown that a cognizable burden exists,” Agee wrote.The dissenting opinion was given by Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum, Jr., a Trump appointee. Quattlebaum agreed with the parents that their right to choose their children’s religious upbringing is being violated by the LGBT mandate.Attorney Eric Baxter represented the parents. “The court just told thousands of Maryland parents they have no say in what their children are taught in public schools,” he <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/maryland-parents-cant-opt-kids-lgbtq-book-curriculum-court-rules-rcna152501" id="">told</a> NBC News.The parents have appealed to the US Supreme Court.‍

Teachers can keep curricula secret from parents, Michigan high court rules

'The implications of this decision are enormous'

The US Secret Service (USSS) is trying to conceal the fact that Donald Trump is not receiving the full security detail at events, according to a whistleblower.The whistleblower’s allegations were revealed in a letter sent by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) to USSS Acting Director Ronald Rowe on Tuesday. According to Hawley, the USSS is being accused of blocking Homeland Security investigators from Trump rallies and events to prevent them from discovering the truth about the deficient security.“A Secret Service whistleblower has alleged to my office that Secret Service headquarters blocked several auditors from the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (OIG) from accessing recent Trump campaign events,” the letter read. “The whistleblower alleges that the Secret Service denied access to DHS auditors because the former president is not receiving the full level of protective assets for all of his events, and Secret Service leadership wants to obscure or simply conceal this fact.” [Emphasis original]According to the allegations, the USSS allows access to DHS auditors only at select events where they provide the full security detail. This is “to create the impression he is recdeiving this level of protection at all times, when in fact he is not,” the letter continued.The senator then cited Rowe’s statements that Trump is receiving “the highest level of Secret Service protection” and that “he’s getting everything.”“This new whistleblower information troublingly contradicts your public statements,” Hawley concluded before asking Rowe to address the contradiction.<div data-rt-embed-type='true'><blockquote class="twitter-tweet">🚨🚨 BREAKING: A Secret Service whistleblower tells <a href="https://twitter.com/HawleyMO?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@HawleyMO</a> that USSS leadership is DENYING government auditors access to certain Trump events to conceal the fact he is still not getting maximum protection. This is huge. <a href="https://t.co/3qiqzTDwxj">pic.twitter.com/3qiqzTDwxj</a>&mdash; Abigail Jackson 🇺🇸 (@abigailmarone) <a href="https://twitter.com/abigailmarone/status/1843831994897314190?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 9, 2024</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div><h2 id="">‘This has got to stop’</h2>Hawley <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/video/6363010775112" id="">discussed</a> the allegations with Fox News host Sean Hannity on Tuesday, saying he has “had enough of this from Secret Service leadership” and noting that this is not the first Secret Service whistleblower. Previous accusations were made against the agency after the second attempt on Trump’s life at the Trump International golf course last month.“Another whistleblower, a different one, tells me that it is standard protocol at that golf course, which Trump plays all the time by the way as you know, it's standard protocol to sweep it before Trump gets onto the course,” Hawley said.“It's also standard protocol to post up agents at those places along the course where they know that there's a clean line of sight and they didn't do any of those things. I mean, Sean, what is going on here? I mean, we've got to get the facts, we need answers and all we're getting from the leadership of the Secret Service is more stonewalling, they're not answering questions, they're not cooperating with investigators. Now it looks like they're trying to mislead their own internal investigators. My gosh, this has got to stop.”‍

Protecting your
Medical Freedom
and Civil Liberties

Medical Mutilation

WHO Controls WHO?

Latest Work

CBS melts down after anchor practices actual journalism

New FDA-approved Alzheimer's drugs shrink your brain (and may kill you)

Teachers can keep curricula secret from parents, Michigan high court rules

The Secret Service is secretly shorting Trump on security, says whistleblower

Latest Videos

How Much IsYour Freedom Worth?